New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesRe: Yes, but
in reply to a message by তন্ময় ভট
Never trust a radio sports commentator ... but the great Pakistani batsman Inzamam-ul-Haq is pronounced by all of them as if his last name (I've never worked out what all those hyphens are doing. Perhaps you know? If so, I'd love to!) was spelled Hahk.
It bothers me when people say that Haq sounds like Hawk. When I say 'hawk' I use the same vowel as in 'more', without the R of course, or 'aw' as in 'aw! Cute!'. Americans I think often say 'hahk'. Which is fine if we're all making the same noises, and fine for Inzie too, but confusing for those who come from different language/dialectal backgrounds.
It bothers me when people say that Haq sounds like Hawk. When I say 'hawk' I use the same vowel as in 'more', without the R of course, or 'aw' as in 'aw! Cute!'. Americans I think often say 'hahk'. Which is fine if we're all making the same noises, and fine for Inzie too, but confusing for those who come from different language/dialectal backgrounds.
1
Replies
Well, now we are in a domain which is difficult without being formal: we can use the International Phonetic Alphabet if you are familiar with it. and have the fonts that allow you to see it on your screen when I write it in Unicode. You can also look at http://tinyurl.com/ghndf which explains the usage.
What I was saying was that the Bengali will often use the open-mid back rounded vowel, i.e. [hɔq] or [hɔk] because the uvular q is a borrowing and not native to bengali. This is the sound close to aw that I was talking about (it is the sound corresponding to aw in the web page mentioned above). In Pakistan, on the other hand, it is more likely to involve a schwa [həq] or [hə:q], this was the other sound I was talking about (I was being imprecise when I said it was like cut: that sound is a open-mid back vowel, and the sound I want is an indeterminate mid central vowel, similar but different). The schwa is well described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwa.
What I have not heard is [hæq] or any variant of that which is what I read hak as, and which is what I called the sound like hack. (It is the top row under vowels in the first url referred above). So, that was the sound I was interested in if anyone heard it.
As to the hyphens, they are grammatical markers. Inzamam is one word, al/ul/ur/uz/... (an almost infinity of ways to match up with the next consonant and the vowel as well as the consonantal rule depending on Arabic versus Persian extraction) another word and Haq a third word which are spoken together phonetically, but parsed into the separate units immediately. Except for being phonetically much closer, it is conceptually the same hyphen as in a phrase-contracted-to-a-word construction. The central short word can very often be translated as -of- or -the- in English (think Salman-the-wise Mary-of-Scotland etc.)
What I was saying was that the Bengali will often use the open-mid back rounded vowel, i.e. [hɔq] or [hɔk] because the uvular q is a borrowing and not native to bengali. This is the sound close to aw that I was talking about (it is the sound corresponding to aw in the web page mentioned above). In Pakistan, on the other hand, it is more likely to involve a schwa [həq] or [hə:q], this was the other sound I was talking about (I was being imprecise when I said it was like cut: that sound is a open-mid back vowel, and the sound I want is an indeterminate mid central vowel, similar but different). The schwa is well described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwa.
What I have not heard is [hæq] or any variant of that which is what I read hak as, and which is what I called the sound like hack. (It is the top row under vowels in the first url referred above). So, that was the sound I was interested in if anyone heard it.
As to the hyphens, they are grammatical markers. Inzamam is one word, al/ul/ur/uz/... (an almost infinity of ways to match up with the next consonant and the vowel as well as the consonantal rule depending on Arabic versus Persian extraction) another word and Haq a third word which are spoken together phonetically, but parsed into the separate units immediately. Except for being phonetically much closer, it is conceptually the same hyphen as in a phrase-contracted-to-a-word construction. The central short word can very often be translated as -of- or -the- in English (think Salman-the-wise Mary-of-Scotland etc.)
1
Thank you so much! Yes, I am well acquanited with the IPA and only wish I could use it on this program - it does simplify life.
I've never heard [hæq] either, for Inzie, except from new commentators who mysteriously get it right in their next session, or at least do it differently! So it seems to be what (Anglo) people guess might be the correct sound, until they are told differently.
As for the hyphens, I now see how they're used and why, and I'm delighted to know. I'm also having fun imagining the frustration that names like that must have caused the British civil servants who had to register births etc in colonial days! On the analogy of Salman and Mary, I take it he would be known simply as Inzamam, without the honorific; that must also simplify life.
Strictly off-topic: do you or did you ever follow cricket?
I've never heard [hæq] either, for Inzie, except from new commentators who mysteriously get it right in their next session, or at least do it differently! So it seems to be what (Anglo) people guess might be the correct sound, until they are told differently.
As for the hyphens, I now see how they're used and why, and I'm delighted to know. I'm also having fun imagining the frustration that names like that must have caused the British civil servants who had to register births etc in colonial days! On the analogy of Salman and Mary, I take it he would be known simply as Inzamam, without the honorific; that must also simplify life.
Strictly off-topic: do you or did you ever follow cricket?
1
Yes.
1
possible misinterpretation
I realized I might have left a misimpression.
On this board, I was trying to give the etymology of -al- and -ur- name, not their current usage. The latter (whether it behaves as a honorific or last name) depends on the culture and how far in the past you are talking about. Just like a MacDonald today may have no conscious affiliation to a clan associated with any Donald, nor do everyone called O'Shea know of the Shea, there is no reason to presuppose that an Albukhari has ever been to Bukhara. Though it is true that Mujibur Rahman was called Mujib, not Mujibur, this depends a lot on how familiar the culture is with the etymology etc. In other words, etymology can only tell you how it originated, not how it is used today.
I realized I might have left a misimpression.
On this board, I was trying to give the etymology of -al- and -ur- name, not their current usage. The latter (whether it behaves as a honorific or last name) depends on the culture and how far in the past you are talking about. Just like a MacDonald today may have no conscious affiliation to a clan associated with any Donald, nor do everyone called O'Shea know of the Shea, there is no reason to presuppose that an Albukhari has ever been to Bukhara. Though it is true that Mujibur Rahman was called Mujib, not Mujibur, this depends a lot on how familiar the culture is with the etymology etc. In other words, etymology can only tell you how it originated, not how it is used today.
1
So Mujibur would be Mujib-ur-Rahman in a different writing system! Most interesting - I would have assumed that the -ur was just any old syllable, as in Jodhpur (which presumably is different).
And you're so right about people losing sight of the original meaning of names like, oh dear, McKenzie for a girl, or Emerson.
All the best
And you're so right about people losing sight of the original meaning of names like, oh dear, McKenzie for a girl, or Emerson.
All the best
1
Jodha (fighter) + pur (settlement)
1